|
书写动作流畅性对学习判断的影响
|
Abstract:
元记忆监控是元记忆的核心组成部分,它影响人们分配认知资源和控制后来的学习。已有研究发现流畅性影响学习判断,然而这些研究集中在信息加工的范畴上,如知觉流畅性、编码流畅性和提取流畅性。很少有研究考察运动流畅性,特别是写作流畅性对元记忆监控和记忆效果的影响。本研究探讨了写作流畅性对元记忆监控的影响。实验1被试分别用惯用手或非惯用手在卡片上写下单词,4 s后进行JOL,最后自由回忆。实验2通过观看他人用优势手或非优势手书写的视频。实验1发现被试用优势手书写的JOL值较高;实验2两种书写条件下的JOL值无显著性差异。结果表明,运动流畅性影响记忆监测,运动流畅性效应依赖于真实运动体验。
Metamemory monitoring is the core component of metamemory, affecting how people allocate cognitive resources and control later learning. Many studies have found that the fluency affect judgment of learning, but these studies focus on the changes in the processing of information, for example, perceptual fluency, encoding fluency and retrieval fluency. Few studies have investigated the influence of object movement fluency, especially writing fluency, on metamemory monitoring and mnemonic effects. The study explores the impact of fluency of writing on meta-memory monitoring. In Experiment 1, the subject uses the dominant hand or the non-dominant hand to write the words on the card, making JOL after 4 s, and finally freely recall. In Experiment 2, the participants watch the video of others using dominant or non-dominant hand-written words to learn and make JOL. Experiment 1 found that the JOL value of the subjects in the words written by the dominant hand was higher; while the JOL values under the two writing conditions in Experiment 2 were not significantly different. The results show that the fluency of motoric fluency affects memory monitoring, and the motoric fluency effect depends on the real sports experience.
[1] | 李锋盈, 陈颖, 欧阳林, 李伟健(2017). 重量对元认知监控的无意识影响. 心理科学, (5), 1026-1032. |
[2] | 王一牛, 周立明, 罗跃嘉(2008). 汉语情感词系统的初步编制及评定. 中国心理卫生杂志, 22(8), 608-612. |
[3] | Alban, M. W., & Kelley, C. M. (2013). Embodiment Meets Metamemory: Weight as a Cue for Metacognitive Judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1628-1634. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032420 |
[4] | Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Schwartz, B. L. (1998). The Mismeasure of Memory: When Retrieval Fluency Is Misleading as a Metamnemonic Index. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 127, 55.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.127.1.55 |
[5] | Besken, M., & Mulligan, N. W. (2014). Perceptual Fluency, Auditory Generation, and Metamemory: Analyzing the Perceptual Fluency Hypothesis in the Auditory Modality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 429. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034407 |
[6] | Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and Metamemory Considerations in the Training of Human Beings. Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing, 185-205. |
[7] | De la Fuente, J., Casasanto, D., & Santiago, J. (2015). Observed Actions Affect Body-Specific Associations between Space and Valence. Acta Psychology, 156, 32-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.01.004 |
[8] | Diemand-Yauman, C., Oppenheimer, D. M., & Vaughan, E. B. (2011). Fortune Favors the Bold (and the Italicized): Effects of Disfluency on Educational Outcomes. Cognition, 118, 114-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.012 |
[9] | Hertzog, C., Dunlosky, J., Robinson, A. E., & Kidder, D. P. (2003). Encoding Fluency Is a Cue Used for Judgments about Learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 22-34.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.1.22 |
[10] | Hirshman, E., & Mulligan, N. (1991). Perceptual Interference Improves Explicit Memory But Does Not Enhance Data-Driven Processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 507.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.17.3.507 |
[11] | Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring One’s Own Knowledge during Study: A Cue-Utilization Approach to Judgments of Learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 349-370. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349 |
[12] | Koriat, A., Bjork, R. A., Sheffer, L., & Bar, S. K. (2004). Predicting One’s Own Forgetting: The Role of Experience-Based and Theory-Based Processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 643-656.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.4.643 |
[13] | Mueller, M. L., Dunlosky, J., & Tauber, S. K. (2016). The Effect of Identical Word Pairs on People’s Metamemory Judgments: What Are the Contributions of Processing Fluency and Beliefs about Memory? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 781-799. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1058404 |
[14] | Mulligan, N. W. (1996). The Effects of Perceptual Interference at Encoding on Implicit Memory, Explicit Memory, and Memory for Source. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1067-1087.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.5.1067 |
[15] | Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2002). Are Performance Predictions for Text Based on Ease of Processing? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 69-80. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.1.69 |
[16] | Rhodes, M. G., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Memory Predictions Are Influenced by Perceptual Information: Evidence for Metacognitive Illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 615-625. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013684 |
[17] | Rhodes, M. G., & Castel, A. D. (2009). Metacognitive Illusions for Auditory Information: Effects on Monitoring and Control. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 550-554. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.3.550 |
[18] | Simon, D. A., & Bjork, R. A. (2001). Metacognition in Motor Learning. Memory, and Cognition, 27, 907-912.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.4.907 |
[19] | Soderstrom, N. C., & Mccabe, D. P. (2011). The Interplay between Value and Relatedness as Bases for Metacognitive Monitoring and Control: Evidence for Agenda-Based Monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1236-1242. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023548 |
[20] | Susser, J. A., & Mulligan, N. W. (2015). The Effect of Motoric Fluency on Metamemory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1014-1019. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0768-1 |
[21] | Susser, J. A., Panitz, J., Buchin, Z., & Mulligan, N. W. (2017). The Motoric Fluency Effect on Metamemory. Journal of Memory & Language, 95, 116-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.03.002 |